Posted by : Shawn in (Emerging Church, PC (USA))
Is the PC(USA) worth “saving?”
If you aren’t a reader of pomomusings, you should be. Adam Walker Cleaveland is a seminarian/soon-to-be minister who offers wonderful thoughts, insights, and questions about faith, the PC(USA), web design and his dog. He posted an entry today entitled Can presbymergent Save the PC(USA)?. After reading it, I immediately agreed and disagreed with him and started telling him so in his blog comments. After four paragraphs, I figured I should just blog my response instead. So here it is.
Adam,
I’m a little troubled by a couple of your statements. I think I get the main thrust of your post - presbymergent is about being faithful, not about reforming or renewing the PC(USA). It’s not a 5 step method of increasing church attendance, getting young people in the door, or re-energizing a dying denomination. I agree wholeheartedly with that. What bothers me a little bit is your statement where you seem to say you aren’t concerned about the dying PC(USA).
I agree that as Christian saving the PC(USA) is not *the* goal, but I think it’s OK to be concerned for the denomination’s health. Personally, even with all our faults, I believe that the PC(USA) has unique gifts to be used in responding to God’s call and being part of God’s Kingdom. And so I am concerned about the dying PC(USA), because I believe that God is working with through the PC(USA) for good.
Our top priority should definitely be following Jesus and being the body of Christ in the world. It should not be being Presbyterian, but for me following Jesus leads me to be concerned about the dying PC(USA). If presbymergent or pomomusings were dying (and I thank God that they are thriving and growing), I would be concerned about them. Not because God can’t get by without them, but because they are an important part of many people’s journey of faith, and they are contributing to God’s Kingdom. I believe that this is also the case for the PC(USA).
You may not be doing this, but many people almost have this fatalism about the PC(USA). They take the attitude that if it dies it must be God’s will. This may be the case, but it may not be. Many wonderful ministries die because people screw them up, not necessarily because God wills it. If our denomination fades away I want to make sure it’s because God wants it, not because I don’t care.
Let me ask a question to you Adam, and to anyone else who cares to answer. I hope it doesn’t sound snarky, because it is sincere and I’m curious and interested in hearing how people answer it. If you are not concerned about the dying PC(USA) then why be a part of it? If we choose to be here, aren’t we affirming that God is at work here? And if we affirm God’s work being done here, shouldn’t we be concerned if that work should stop? I think we can be concerned about the survival of the denomination, without being inordinately concerned about it.
I think God is doing some stuff in the world and and the PC(USA) may or may not manage to get on board to be part of God’s plan. It is largely up to us, but admittedly there are lots of institutional, cultural and demographic factors working against us.
I think that the Emergent/Missional Church movements are promising signs of the new growth God is bringing.
Every time I get really frustrated with mainline churches, I hear Alan Roxburogh remind me that the Spirit of God is with the People of God and that revival usually happens in unpromising, unexpected places. The Exodus happened among Hebrew slaves in Egypt. Jesus was born in insignificant, fractured, occupied Palestine. Examples abound.
Shawn - it’s a fair question, it is. And one that I wrestle with often - as you might have picked up from the post. It’s something I want to do some more thinking about and reflecting on. I think I feel a “Part 2″ to the post I put up today and I think you’ll find our answer there.
That being said, it’s just not an easy answer for me. And I was kind of expecting someone to ask it, so thanks for being that person.
It sounds like I’m totally ignoring your question, but…I will answer it on my blog. Just not quite yet…
Great discussion. I’m about to post a comment that’s way too long, and I should probably trackback, but… here goes…
I love the Presbyterian Church–it’s the place that I learned about grace, it’s the place where so many people have put energy and care into forming me as a person and a minister. I’m extremely grateful for that. I am concerned about its decline.
But, I can’t put a lot of energy into saving something that’s dying. It’s a pragmatic choice for me. As a pastor of small churches, whenever the emphasis was on rescuing the dying congregation, people became frustrated and deflated. All they could see were all the terrible things that were happening around us. It was a vicious cycle, and we had to shift the focus before we could make way for vital things to begin.
When the emphasis was on the amazing things that were occurring around us… well, then, we became a much more hopeful people. We began dreaming about what we could become.
We spend a lot of time and energy wringing our hands and beating ourselves up over the shrinking numbers in our denomination. We might even spend more time on that than fighting about sexuality…
The gift of Presbymergents could be to shift the focus, to show us the amazing things that are happening–how the spiritual lives of people are deepening, how new technologies are shaping community, how more and more people want to plant churches. It could be a movement that renews our commitment to social and environmental justice. I hope that’s the case.
Carol, I think there is a difference between putting energy into saving the PC(USA) and being concerned about it dying. And if I get some more time after going to the Renaissance Festival today, I might try to articulate it.
Huzzah!
I hate to sound like a broken record, but…
There’s a big difference between dying and getting smaller. I believe that the PCUSA is getting smaller, and that eventually it will make us stronger.
Good dialogue
I just left a presbytery meeting where we discussed a lower budget and, while one noted that campus ministry was cut by more than 35%, the presbytery was basically asked to either “trust the process” or vote for “more funds for my or your idea.” The whole thing was not as ugly as it could have been, but it did leave me thinking, why are we doing this?
Which makes your comments interesting. here are a few cursory responses (R) to the questions (Q) you pose to Adam, and to me by association, I guess.
Q. If you are not concerned about the dying PC(USA) then why be a part of it?
R. I joined the PC(USA) as a connectional community seeking to display the kingdom of God, and our connection is rooted in the fidelity of that God to bring such kingdom and provisional toward that end alone…
In a sense we joined a team in the game of kingdom work, and when the court and the players adapt and we are no longer playing that game but simply running drills like the harlem globetrotters, then its time to let the team end on its own, not set up an endowment that it might play in perpetuity.
a few excerpts from our book of order:
G-3.0401c, “The church is called to a new openess to the possibilities and perils of its institutional forms in order to ensure the faithfulness and usefulness of these forms to God’s activity in the world.”
G 30400. “The Church is called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ.”
Q. If we choose to be here [in the PC(USA)], aren’t we affirming that God is at work here? And if we affirm God’s work being done here, shouldn’t we be concerned if that work should stop?
R: Niehbur might have said this best in his “approximation of brotherly love.” To grossly paraphrase this ethical concept, we work toward an ideal, toward an eschatological promise, and yet we are called to submit these working ideals to critiques. We can learn by what is not working, that it may no longer fit. While eschatological hope (and prophetic imagination) is a guide our prior hopes and actions are not “proof” that God’s mission depends upon us hoping them and doing them forever.
I agree with your closing comments, “I think we can be concerned about the survival of the denomination, without being inordinately concerned about it.” However, I am worried that we assume, then, that our call is to refine and protect our precious denomination/church/ideology because of it’s historical precedence. Survival of a structure does not guarantee its future usefulness. But continually rebuilding and being rebuild (with consideration of the construction tools we have been handed by the great cloud of witnesses before us), that is missional.
returning to the presbytery meeting I just left- What if we were led by images from scripture and the testimonies of those structure ahead of us (all signs that the spirit uses) to hand our denomination away, to put it in risk, the way that G30400 might dare, like Barmen dares, like paul dared as he met with Peter and others in the Jerusalem counsel? What if we were not concerned with renewing a previous thing, but building something funded in those testimonies for our children and for our neighbor?
On sunday I spoke at a local Atlanta church on the topic of missional churches. Using the Newbigin triad, i was explaining how the church is not the end-user of the gospel but placed in relationship with culture by the gospel.
Afterwards an architect came to me and described his firms approach to designing hospitals. He noted that all the other firms in Atlanta come to the client with three different options, A, B, or C. And they ask the hospital which would they would prefer. His firm, however, asks the client to describe what they hope to become in their hospital service, to describe the functions. He saw a similarly between his firm’s work with hospitals and our church structures addressing culture, those we are called to bless with our hope-in-action.
I think that the “renew our denominations” drum is too concerned with finding clients to keep models A,B,or C in business. And we could learn from the architect who (1) asks about the future that their clients hope to see, and (2) are building (appropriating classical knowledge) based on function and not precedence.
Blogs are awesome. In the comments y’all have said so much more than I wrote in the original post, and said it better at that.
I don’t think that my original intent was very far off from most of the comments here. I was simply trying to say that as long as the PC(USA) is helping people proclaim the Kingdom of God and be the body of Christ then I am wanting it to thrive. Once it is detrimental to those ends, then I will be content to let is go the way of the dinosaur.
Amen Shawn - you put it so well! My feelings exactly.
My blatherings on the pomomusing site really belong here:
I’ve been thinking a lot about this because of events I witness like Troy’s mention of his presbytery cutting college ministry. This happens over and over because (and seriously committees SAY this) these ministries do not yield the financial return to make them sustainable. They don’t produce “giving units.” Seems so unspiritual and short-sighted - contrary to ministry. This bring us to the icky subject emergents don’t talk about because we’re about being earthy and the poor: resources.
With all its huge endowments at the GA level, PCUSA is attempting to restore power to presbyteries who are closer to the action. Good - but most presbyteries are financially pinched and think more like businesses than ministries. With about 4-6 exceptions, they’ve lost their raison d’etre, a sense of mission and advancing the Kingdom of God. Yes, it’s sad.
On the other hand, if we abandon the ship because we’re tired of short-sighted pragmatics and money talk, we’re snubbing our ancestors who gave their resources in good faith in the name of mission, that ministry would continue in Jesus, not (in most cases) in the name of PCUSA. Yes, heritage mattered to them, but I know some elderly people who wanted to bless PCUSA through a new church like the one I was doing, an emergent, knowing that the church as it is today is not “reaching the young people.” Can we be faithful and stick to our elders who want what we want? I think the main problem is the wrong people get put on these power-broker committees.
I’m in PCUSA because (1) I was a member when I went off naively to seminary after years as a lay leader, (2) I interned in several very healthy PCUSA churches which gave me a misleadingly sweet taste of the denomination (which I credit to the Holy Sneakiness of God), (3) these missional congregations gave me a vision for our denomination, one rooted in history, healthy theology, connection and a democratic model, doing great things for God’s Kingdom.
In short, let’s not let the healthy PCUSAers down by giving up on the decaying bureaucracy. Let’s empower them and give them increased voice - not just “trust the process” (boy, I’ve heard that one - usually right before some political lynching). Some good changes seem to be happening in the streamlined GA. Encourage leaders of healthy churches to actually show up for presbytery meetings. They are out there - they are just not in the limelight, speaking in committees or on the floor.
It’s not simply about “saving PCUSA.” We can’t become a huddle of young people that sails off for the hills of innovation and idealism. That would be like a teenager leaving his parents in a huff because they “just don’t get me.” While that may be true, can we really do better? Historical studies of ‘awakening,’ revival or renewal (or whatever you want to call it - the topic of my MA thesis) reveal that they all end up congealing after a generation or two, forming a doctrinal statement and whatever they vowed at the start they never would. Do we want to start that cycle over again? Avoiding this is one reason why, during my 20s, I left an independent church that wanted to do everything new and refused to recite ancient creeds. History is valuable, and if we don’t learn from it because we want to be new and cool idealists, we’ll end up with a flash in the pan that may or may not amount to anything… fizzling out or hardening like all the others. Perhaps the old have to learn from the new and vice-versa. ? Just a thought experiment from a raving idealist.
It’s not about saving anything - we leave that up to jesus. It’s about remaining loyal to His words and works. The 218th GA twice rejected accepting “allegiance to Christ” because people were unable to humble themselves and do it. As I wrote before, Christ will do the saving, but we are the ones who are called to do the serving…the trouble is we are too narcissistic to accept the lowliness of being servants..we would rather be culturally sycophantic seekers.